And I seriously doubt they are the only church suffering these problems…but the bill is about them only.
This is incorrect. Certain public universities, such as University of California, have sworn police officers who are not a private police force.
So why would a church run police force have to be exactly the same as a university run police force?
Like I said, I know of churches where the armed security force is comprised of all volunteer congregants.
What religious practice are you impeding?
Nothing in the constitution says that churches shall have every right that universities have.
Well, that’s a good point. The prohibition against politiciking is for all 501(c)(3). But the point still stands that we can treat all churches as a group similarly without treating them similarly to all non-profits. The first part of the first amendment seems to be satisfied if we don’t play favorites and the second part seems to be satisfied if we don’t impede the free exercise of religion. I don’t see how a blanket prohibition from having their own police force runs afoul of either of those but then again, constitutional law is so fucked up that really smart people go crazy trying to make sense of it.
Again, we are not talking about “armed security guards”. Are these volunteers you are proposing going to go through the complete training and upkeep to become full-fledged police officers, which is what the bill requires?
NOT in-house security, NOT volunteer security.
Fully trained police officers.
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi]
Nothing in the constitution says that churches shall have every right that universities have.
[/QUOTE]
More importantly, afaik nothing in the Constitution or anything else says they shall NOT have every right that universities (or similar organizations) do, or that by having the right to a similar ‘police force’, operating within the laws and regulations of the state is a violation of the Constitution. If the Constitution wanted or needed Churches to be special cases for something like this it would have defined them that way. That it didn’t seems, to me at least, to mean wrt this issue they aren’t any different and should be able to have a similar security force under similar constraints and terms. No?
Yes, there is. It’s the First Amendment.
The point doesn’t stand. If we don’t treat churches the same as other non-profits, that is discrimination by the government on the basis of religion. And that’s against the First Amendment.
What is the compelling reason for precluding a religious organization for having its own police that doesn’t apply to private universities? It isn’t the establishment of religion - the government isn’t allowing one religion to have police but forbidding others, or allowing religious organizations to have police but forbidding it to non-religious non-profits. So the government would not be treating one religion better than another, or religion better than no religion.
If they forbade this church from doing what it allows non-churches to do, they would be treating a religious organization better than a non-religious one, and to justify that, you have to have a reason. What do you think that reason is?
Regards,
Shodan
Private police are a problem, period, because they can be fired for enforcing the law in a way that the private organization doesn’t want. Police have discretion, meaning they can choose not to enforce the law in certain situations.
The only way I can see this not being a conflict of interest if the organization has no power to fire or hire–only to make recommendations. However, if that’s the case, I don’t see how it’s a private police force.
In this particular situation, I fail to see why a police force is needed at all. It sounds like all they need is security with police-level training. And, seeing as it apparently requires an additional law to give them police–i.e. additional regulation–I don’t see why conservatives would want it, either.
His argument is that you could apply something to all churches (or other houses of worship) regardless of their religion. You don’t have to treat all organizations of the same classification the same way. You can carve out an exception that doesn’t violate the law, as long as it doesn’t discriminate among religions.
And, yes, church-like organizations that are entirely non-religious would have to be included, too. But, still there’s a difference between a non-profit and what a church does, which is mostly a membership club.
And that is definitely a problem. We had the same situation in Arkansas where an issue on the ballot names specific organizations as being the only ones allowed to have gambling establishments. Fortunately, it was found invalid before voting started.
Any bill that explicitly favors an organization or organizations is bad. I would have though I’d be joining conservatives in this concept.
If private police are a good idea, then everyone should be able to have them. Otherwise, it should be no one.
I personally think it’s a bad idea.
It probably depends on the state, but most if not all of them are going to require that any “private police” have the same licensing requirements as any other peace officer in that state. Which means that they’ll be just as eligible for hire by the state police, the local police, the county sheriff, etc… and will be held to the same standards.
Beyond that, without their own jail or courts, they’ll be limited to arresting and transporting people to the county or city jails, where they’ll be tried by the normal justice system.
And finally, I have a suspicion that most private security guards have an “observe and report” directive; if you go walking onto the church during the school day, they can’t really run you off; the best they can do is call the cops on you if you’re doing something they think you shouldn’t. And of course, there’s some non-zero response time involved. I can see why a church with 2 schools might think it would be prudent to have their own cops handy to be able to take care of stuff immediately instead of having to “observe and report” and then wait for the local ops to show up. Not that I necessarily agree, but I can understand.
Yes, and the constraints and terms are they have to be a university.
The reasons they give for wanting a police department are ludicrous. “We’re having trouble retaining security staff”. Really? How much are they paying? It’s going to be cheaper and easier to run a frigging police department?
[QUOTE=CarnalK]
Yes, and the constraints and terms are they have to be a university.
[/QUOTE]
What do you base this on? 
Maybe this is the disconnect…do you have evidence or a cite that shows that churches are treated differently by the Constitution wrt this specific issue? Is there law stating the churches can not have such a group? AFAIK there isn’t and folks in this thread opposed to the idea are being completely arbitrary…as I said, probably do to the fact that religion and churches aren’t exactly loved around here. But if you have some information I’m missing, well, that would be helpful.
Irrelevant. Whether they should or shouldn’t or whether it’s a silly idea is totally different from whether they can, legally, within the framework of the Constitution. If it makes no economic sense then that’s their issue and doesn’t impact the OPs from a Constitutional perspective.
Public police can be fired for enforcing laws that their politician/police overlords dont want them to enforce. This guy comes to mind. Frank Serpico - Wikipedia
I would think having a very large organization wanting a formal sanctioned police force would be preferable to a private unsanctioned force because the standards and scrutiny will be higher. Would you rather have them have a regular police force; or would these type protecters be better? Fruit of Islam - Wikipedia
Well the fact Is, they currently can’t do it whether you agree or not. That’s why this is pending legislation. This current legislation is undoubtedly unconstitutional because it is giving one specific church a police force while no other church can.
And whether a broader allowing of all churches to set up police departments may be constitutional, I rather think it wouldn’t be. It’s putting a priest in charge of a very dearly held government function.
While this may seem like no big deal when it’s a Presbyterian minister as the priest in charge, I wonder if you would all be so chill when the Moonies and Scientologists start up their police departments.
Only Catholics have Priests…Protestants have ministers.
Also, Scientologists dont have churches. There are no Scientology services.
There are Scientology compounds/campuses.
The nomenclature is irrelevant. They are churches with head preachers.
Am I getting whooshed here. At least three non-RC denominations I know of have priests.
This one I don’t know about. Is that really the case?